Settle a debate: running & muscle building

shinypenny said:

I'm in a debate with a body builder about this question: does running
build muscle mass?

Endurance running doesn't.

Quoted message said:

He claims that it does not build muscle because it does not apply
resistance throughout the motion of the muscles contraction, as
lifting a weight would.

Not necessary to have resistance throughout the entire range of motion.

Indeed, most bodybuilders only use a narrow part of the total range of
motion for squats for example.

Olympic lifters for example, get pretty big and they use rapid and explosive
movements, they don't have continuous tension.

Quoted message said:

I'm of the mind that it does - but I have no leg to stand on when it
comes to explaining how! My guess is that gravitational forces somehow
supply the resistance.... ?

It doesn't matter a whole lot whether there are big plates of metal or not,
as long as there is force on the muscles.

Quoted message said:

The question isn't whether or not runners should lift weights or which
is best to build big, strong bulky body-builder muscles. The question
is simply whether running builds any mass or strength at all, and if
so, how does it do it. It seems logical to me that it does, since my
legs seem a lot stronger.

How did you measure these strength increases in your legs ?

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Elflord said:

shinypenny said:

I'm in a debate with a body builder about this question: does running
build muscle mass?

Endurance running doesn't.

What about other forms of running, such as a schedule that allots in
recovery time? I'm mostly thinking here about beginners. I imagine at
some point the body gets used to the load, and running no longer
builds any strength. But in the beginning.... ? Going from couch
potato, to running a few times a week?

I know running increases capilliarlies, blood volume, glycogen
storage, and bone density, while burning off intra-muscular fat. But
the question is: does it also build muscle- make them stronger- to any
extent?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He claims that it does not build muscle because it does not apply
resistance throughout the motion of the muscles contraction, as
lifting a weight would.

Not necessary to have resistance throughout the entire range of motion.

Indeed, most bodybuilders only use a narrow part of the total range of
motion for squats for example.

Olympic lifters for example, get pretty big and they use rapid and explosive
movements, they don't have continuous tension.

Do runners who practice sprints and do other speedwork also use rapid
and explosive movements?

Or does this have more to do with fast twitch muscles - i.e., muscle
type - rather than strength gains?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm of the mind that it does - but I have no leg to stand on when it
comes to explaining how! My guess is that gravitational forces somehow
supply the resistance.... ?

It doesn't matter a whole lot whether there are big plates of metal or not,
as long as there is force on the muscles.

Quoted message said:

The question isn't whether or not runners should lift weights or which
is best to build big, strong bulky body-builder muscles. The question
is simply whether running builds any mass or strength at all, and if
so, how does it do it. It seems logical to me that it does, since my
legs seem a lot stronger.

How did you measure these strength increases in your legs ?

Well, I don't belong to a gym. So I didn't - it's all subjective. I
can see hamstring and quad definition... but that could be due to loss
of fat.

jen

shinypenny said:

Elflord said:

shinypenny said:

I'm in a debate with a body builder about this question: does running
build muscle mass?

Endurance running doesn't.

What about other forms of running, such as a schedule that allots in
recovery time? I'm mostly thinking here about beginners. I imagine at

would have to be hard enough that the muscles and not the aerobic system
are the limiting factor -- e.g. sprinting.

Quoted message said:

some point the body gets used to the load, and running no longer
builds any strength. But in the beginning.... ? Going from couch
potato, to running a few times a week?

It could build some strength, but most probably not. My understanding
talking to exercise physiologists is that endurance exercise actual
reduces limit strength.

Quoted message said:

I know running increases capilliarlies, blood volume, glycogen
storage, and bone density, while burning off intra-muscular fat. But
the question is: does it also build muscle- make them stronger- to any
extent?

Your best bet and the last word on it would be to look up studies on this, I
believe it's been done, and it doesn't.

Quoted message said:

Do runners who practice sprints and do other speedwork also use rapid
and explosive movements?

Sprinting is a rapid explosive movement that involves very high forces.

Quoted message said:

Or does this have more to do with fast twitch muscles - i.e., muscle
type - rather than strength gains?

Well both. High force production means fast twitch muscle comes into play,
which means you're likely to get size increase as fast twitch muscle is more
prone to getting big.

Quoted message said:

Well, I don't belong to a gym. So I didn't - it's all subjective. I
can see hamstring and quad definition... but that could be due to loss
of fat.

Almost certainly. Definition is all about low body fat, not about muscle mass.
Alan Webb and Khadevis Robinson have better definition than most heavy olympic
lifters, but the OLs have much more muscle.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Elflord said:

Quoted message said:

What about other forms of running, such as a schedule that allots in
recovery time? I'm mostly thinking here about beginners. I imagine at

would have to be hard enough that the muscles and not the aerobic system
are the limiting factor -- e.g. sprinting.

So when I'm running hard uphill, it's more my aerobic system that's
getting stronger, not so much my legs?

Actually, doesn't doing squats - even without holding any weights -
build strength in your legs? If so, how?

Quoted message said:

It could build some strength, but most probably not. My understanding
talking to exercise physiologists is that endurance exercise actual
reduces limit strength.

Yes, I understand that too.

Quoted message said:

Your best bet and the last word on it would be to look up studies on this, I
believe it's been done, and it doesn't.

I did try, but I couldn't find anything. I wasn't sure if there
weren't any, or I wasn't using the right scientific terminology.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do runners who practice sprints and do other speedwork also use rapid
and explosive movements?

Sprinting is a rapid explosive movement that involves very high forces.

Okay next question: can strength training alone help you develop a
faster sprint? Or is better to sprint if you want to have a faster
sprint?

jen

shinypenny said:

Elflord said:

Quoted message said:

What about other forms of running, such as a schedule that allots in
recovery time? I'm mostly thinking here about beginners. I imagine at

would have to be hard enough that the muscles and not the aerobic system
are the limiting factor -- e.g. sprinting.

So when I'm running hard uphill, it's more my aerobic system that's
getting stronger, not so much my legs?

Yes. Mostly aerobic system but also your running gait improves, which means
oxygen per stride is less.

Quoted message said:

Actually, doesn't doing squats - even without holding any weights -
build strength in your legs? If so, how?

Not really. It's like doing bicep curls with 1lb weights. Might be some
strength increase due to neuromuscular conditioning, but you're not going
to build much muscle mass by doing body weight squats.

Quoted message said:

Okay next question: can strength training alone help you develop a
faster sprint? Or is better to sprint if you want to have a faster
sprint?

Better to sprint. With any complex multi joint movement, specificity is
king. Strength training alone may help, but sprinting will help more.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Elflord said:

shinypenny said:

I'm in a debate with a body builder about this question: does running
build muscle mass?

Endurance running doesn't.

My impression is that my legs got thinner when I first started running
regularly, then got bigger when I started running higher mileage. Is
it possible that increased muscle glycogen and associated water (or
maybe other factors) might make muscles appear larger (although
without what one might consider increased muscle mass)? I didn't
measure so it's just an impression based on how my pants fit. My
overall weight hasn't changed.

tfactor said:

My impression is that my legs got thinner when I first started running
regularly, then got bigger when I started running higher mileage. Is
it possible that increased muscle glycogen and associated water (or
maybe other factors) might make muscles appear larger (although
without what one might consider increased muscle mass)? I didn't
measure so it's just an impression based on how my pants fit. My
overall weight hasn't changed.

Your impression was probably correct, because you can build muscle
running, or not, depending. If you jog slowly you build muscle, run
and fast and you limit it.

Elflord said:

Not really. It's like doing bicep curls with 1lb weights. Might be some
strength increase due to neuromuscular conditioning, but you're not going
to build much muscle mass by doing body weight squats.

Then can I assume that situps and all that core work using body as
weight also does nothing to strengthen stomach muscles? That doesn't
sound right.

jen

shinypenny said:

Then can I assume that situps and all that core work using body as
weight also does nothing to strengthen stomach muscles? That doesn't
sound right.

jen

It doesn't because it isn't, it's wrong. Bodybuilders are idiots,
don't waste your time trying to debate them.

Quoted message said:

It doesn't because it isn't, it's wrong. Bodybuilders are idiots,
don't waste your time trying to debate them.

As proof, what kind of moron exercises taking steroids, knowing he'll
likley die at 45YO from it? And they all say the same [censored] "so what?
I'll look great in my casket".

shinypenny said:

Elflord said:

Not really. It's like doing bicep curls with 1lb weights. Might be some
strength increase due to neuromuscular conditioning, but you're not going
to build much muscle mass by doing body weight squats.

Then can I assume that situps and all that core work using body as
weight

Using bodyweight has different implications depending on the exercise.
Bodyweight biceps curls are much harder than bodyweight squats.

In general, an amount of resistance that makes 8-12 reps challenging is optimal
for building muscle mass. Many people do high reps in abdominal exercises because
they believe in the spot reduction myth.

Quoted message said:

also does nothing to strengthen stomach muscles?

What, precisely, do you mean by "strengthen" stomach muscles ?

Quoted message said:

That doesn't
sound right.

Then think about it some more.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

"shinypenny" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

He claims that it does not build muscle because it does not apply
resistance throughout the motion of the muscles contraction, as
lifting a weight would.

I think it depends on your body type. My legs are quite muscular and cut,
with veins and even a nerve or two visible. (CP can probably vouch for this
for a nominal fee). I've had several weight lifters and body builders ask
me about the weights I do. No weights, but I run a *lot* of hills, which
may partially explain it. I'm also not ultra thin: 5'8", 148lbs. World
class distance guys my height are under 130lbs.

If you're the body-builder body type I think running will increase size,
just not quite as much as size-specific weight work.

"D Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"shinypenny" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

He claims that it does not build muscle because it does not apply
resistance throughout the motion of the muscles contraction, as
lifting a weight would.

I think it depends on your body type. My legs are quite muscular and cut,
with veins and even a nerve or two visible. (CP can probably vouch for
this for a nominal fee). I've had several weight lifters and body
builders ask me about the weights I do. No weights, but I run a *lot* of
hills, which may partially explain it. I'm also not ultra thin: 5'8",
148lbs. World class distance guys my height are under 130lbs.

If you're the body-builder body type I think running will increase size,
just not quite as much as size-specific weight work.

I was going to chime in with the 'you run hills for strength' bit, though
you beat me to it. Particularly when you power up short hills, it can be
like sprinting, and can make your legs stronger. After big hill repeat days,
my legs bulk up in the week following, so they certainly get stronger for
that type of movement, if not in the max power weightlifter sense. When you
see top mountain runners, they always seem to have thicker legs than top
road racers.

-Tony

"tfactor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Elflord said:

shinypenny said:

I'm in a debate with a body builder about this question: does running
build muscle mass?

Endurance running doesn't.

My impression is that my legs got thinner when I first started running
regularly, then got bigger when I started running higher mileage. Is it
possible that increased muscle glycogen and associated water (or maybe
other factors) might make muscles appear larger (although without what one
might consider increased muscle mass)? I didn't measure so it's just an
impression based on how my pants fit. My overall weight hasn't changed.

That could be swelling due to cumulative muscle damage. That's happened to
me before. When I taper properly (that means backing off volume and not
eating too much), my legs get thinner than when I was doing more volume.

-Tony

"Tony S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:tIZbi.11550$Nz5.11403@trndny09...

Quoted message said:

"D Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"shinypenny" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

He claims that it does not build muscle because it does not apply
resistance throughout the motion of the muscles contraction, as
lifting a weight would.

I think it depends on your body type. My legs are quite muscular and
cut, with veins and even a nerve or two visible. (CP can probably
vouch for this for a nominal fee). I've had several weight lifters
and body builders ask me about the weights I do. No weights, but I
run a *lot* of hills, which may partially explain it. I'm also not
ultra thin: 5'8", 148lbs. World class distance guys my height are
under 130lbs.

If you're the body-builder body type I think running will increase
size, just not quite as much as size-specific weight work.

I was going to chime in with the 'you run hills for strength' bit,
though you beat me to it. Particularly when you power up short hills,
it can be like sprinting, and can make your legs stronger. After big
hill repeat days, my legs bulk up in the week following, so they
certainly get stronger for that type of movement, if not in the max
power weightlifter sense. When you see top mountain runners, they
always seem to have thicker legs than top road racers.

I'm not sure if this discussion is about muscle mass or muscle strength.
I agree that endurance does not create mass other then the first few
years but it sure as hell makes them strong. If I put a tape measure to
my legs they have stayed the same dimension for 10 or more years.
Depending on my training they get to the finish line with various
degrees of efficiency, i.e. clock time.

-Doug

Doug Freese said:

I agree that endurance does not create mass other then the first few
years but it sure as hell makes them strong. If I put a tape measure to

How are you measuring "strength" ?

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Tony S. said:

that type of movement, if not in the max power weightlifter sense. When you
see top mountain runners, they always seem to have thicker legs than top
road racers.

B team runners are generally bigger than world class guys. Paul Tergat is a
genuinely world class cross country guy, and he's one of the scrawniest of
the lot.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

D Stumpus said:

"shinypenny" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

He claims that it does not build muscle because it does not apply
resistance throughout the motion of the muscles contraction, as
lifting a weight would.

I think it depends on your body type. My legs are quite muscular and cut,
with veins and even a nerve or two visible. (CP can probably vouch for this
for a nominal fee).

Muscle definition is all about low body fat. It has very little to do with
muscle mass. If you have low body fat, you will always look more muscular
than you really are.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that endurance running makes absolutely no
difference to muscle size, but it's not substantial.

Quoted message said:

I've had several weight lifters and body builders ask
me about the weights I do. No weights, but I run a *lot* of hills, which
may partially explain it.

So does Paul Tergat.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Elflord said:

Muscle definition is all about low body fat. It has very little to do with
muscle mass. If you have low body fat, you will always look more muscular
than you really are.

Hmm... I've seen pics of anorexics who have very little body fat, and
they look all squishy and untoned with little muscle definition.
Skeletal definition, yeah.

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't go so far as to say that endurance running makes absolutely no
difference to muscle size, but it's not substantial.

Perhaps it's not muscle size, but rather, firmness and tone?

Most women don't really want huge bulky muscles. They don't even want
visible veins (ewwww). But they do want firm, toned, and attractive
muscles. I guess this is not the same thing as strong muscles. Maybe
firm and attractive muscles are simply muscles that have very little
intramuscular fat. They may not be any larger than a fatty muscle, but
they are a lot firmer.

jen